The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Philipp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
grannymh said:
Seems to me, in the days before color TV, reason meant using one’s intellect. However, it seems to me that posters keep asking for material/physical evidence.
So, what do you mean by proof? Or do you mean interpretation of revelation?

Blessings,
:snowing:

Our March snow storm in the midst of Spring is a reminder of life.
Click to expand...
Philosophical proofs are enough I think, it doesn’t necessarily entail empirical evidence. One merely needs to think things through: Jesus Christ gave such proof for “re-interpreting” Jewish law: For instance, God told Moses to offer holocaust, the psalmist (I think) exclaimed that a contrite heart is greater than burnt offering, then Jesus claimed that Love is the greatest commandment, then Paul claimed that the law was obeyed for love’s sake.

It should all add up. One cannot say, “The Bible says!” without using reason (intellect/rationality) to back it up. Aquinas stressed that in his writings on the close relationship between faith and reason.
 
buffalo said:
The Magisterium protected by the Holy Spirit together with Scripture and Tradition give us certainty.
Click to expand...
While Swamis and Gurus claim extensive knowledge of the Vedas and the Baghavad Gita and thus give Hindus certainty to their own beliefs.
 
buffalo said:
That is one.

But you get the point. We must be very careful in drawing conclusions since there are things we do not know or can not see and were not there to witness.
Click to expand...
That is a very poor analogy unless you can give me an alternate explanation for why the evidence stacks up in favor of a billions-year-old earth.
 
Caritasregat said:
That is a very poor analogy unless you can give me an alternate explanation for why the evidence stacks up in favor of a billions-year-old earth.
Click to expand...
No one claimed that the rocks were formed with fossils in them.

We cannot count back billions of years and we weren’t there so the best we can do is come up with dating methods that are all based on assumptions that could be wrong.

Now I look for harmony between different sources. Right know there seems to be discord and the reaction is scientism. I will not support scientism so I keep looking and questioning.
 
buffalo said:
Is your claim that they are equal to Catholicism?
Click to expand...
No. My claim is that reason can guide us to Catholicism. Hinduism is a religion with a vast tradition mostly shrouded in paradox and insights contrary to reason.

If we are so bold as to ask questions about Christianity, we will eventually find our answers by light of the intellect, of course allowing for some mysteries, but mysteries which can be explored and which, as I have previously said, “add up”.
 
rossum said:
To a Hindu they are superior to Catholicism. To a Catholic they are inferior to Catholicism.

rossum
Click to expand...
But we know that contradictory beliefs cannot both be true. Only one has the “fullness of truth”.
 
buffalo said:
No one claimed that the rocks were formed with fossils in them.

We cannot count back billions of years and we weren’t there so the best we can do is come up with dating methods that are all based on assumptions that could be wrong.
Click to expand...
Those who say that the earth was created 6000 years ago, while geologists, biologists, astronomers, paleantologists, archeologists, etc. all say that that is impossible.

Sure we make assumptions. But do “young-earthers” have anything better?
 
buffalo said:
But we know that contradictory beliefs cannot both be true. Only one has the “fullness of truth”.
Click to expand...
This is a statement of reason, not revelation. The former supports the latter. You see?
 
Caritasregat said:
No. My claim is that reason can guide us to Catholicism. Hinduism is a religion with a vast tradition mostly shrouded in paradox and insights contrary to reason.

If we are so bold as to ask questions about Christianity, we will eventually find our answers by light of the intellect, of course allowing for some mysteries, but mysteries which can be explored and which, as I have previously said, “add up”.
Click to expand...
How long did it take to form this?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
larkin31 said:
Not “references,” but AUTHORS and THEIR research methods. The site claims that THEY THEMSELVES have done dating and research. They give results in summary form, but no methodology and do not sign their results with any names or credentials. This is no regular form of submission of scientific research.
Click to expand...
buffalo, don’t you find it puzzling (at least) that these self-described researchers won’t publish their names or their methods for doing some of their work?
 
edwest2 said:
So, all the creationists just disappeared in a puff of smoke after you stated your conclusion? Not likely.God bless,Ed
Click to expand...
No, I’m sure they did not disappear in a puff of smoke. They are wherever they usually hang out when they can’t get a hearing from scientists. How long YEC will persist I don’t know.

The Flat Earthers have a new website: theflatearthsociety.org/cms/, and the Geocentrists have a new champion in the person of Robert Sungenis, catholicintl.com/aboutus/b-robert.htm.
 
larkin31 said:
buffalo, don’t you find it puzzling (at least) that these self-described researchers won’t publish their names or their methods for doing some of their work?
Click to expand...
If they are acting as a sort of clearinghouse (if you will) to independently review submitted empirical research I have no problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top